“They are trying to do indirectly what they are not legally allowed to do directly,” Carroll said.

Carroll is also representing Ball in her suit against the city for failing to provide requested documents related to the Roth Hill casino within the state-mandated 14 days from the day of a public records request.

Carroll argued that the proceedings for Natchez OpCo’s lawsuit against Varnell should be stayed until the appeal is resolved.

“In effect, you’re going to try this case twice,” Carroll said. “It’s my understanding they’re down there moving dirt right now and have been long before this third amendment was approved.”

Carroll said if the casino’s funding is in danger, the developers should stop spending money on construction until the appeal is resolved.

The basis of Varnell’s appeal, Carroll said, is that the city’s lease with the casino developers has been null and void since the aldermen voted it such on Feb. 22, 2011, and the city attorney notified developers that the contract was void. Developers had 30 days to respond to the notice, but the aldermen did not vote to grant developers an extension on the lease while developers were seeking approval from the Mississippi Gaming Commission until April 2011, when a second amendment was added to the lease. Carroll said additionally that the second amendment was not published in the minutes of the aldermen’s meeting.

“It’s like putting a saddle on a dead horse, you can’t approve an amendment on a contract that is not valid,” Carroll said.

Carroll said any subsequent action of the board of aldermen, including the recent third amendment, is not valid. Carroll said a draft of Varnell’s bill of exception was submitted to the city Friday and was not done before because the bill was based on information requested in three separate public records requests. He said the city has yet to provide all of the requested documents.

Johnson called the two simultaneous cases “a most unusual situation.” Johnson denied Natchez OpCo’s motion for expedited discovery and also Varnell’s motion for stay.

Johnson said Varnell did have a legal right to appeal the board’s approval of the third amendment.

Johnson gave the city until Friday to sign Varnell’s bill of exception or it is deemed signed. Johnson also gave the city until April 27 to file its corresponding bill of exception, Varnell until May 11 to file a brief and the city until May 25 to file its corresponding brief.

While Johnson was setting the deadlines for the documents, Natchez City Attorney Everett Sanders, who was sitting in the courtroom audience, entered the court and said he did not believe the court had the authority to impose the deadlines on the city because the city is not a party in Natchez OpCo’s suit against Varnell.

Johnson said Varnell’s appeal is subject to his ruling of the suit against Varnell in circuit court. Johnson upheld the deadlines and told Sanders that the bill of exception is not something that the city needs time for discovery because the appeal is based on what is reflected in the record.

“We’re not retrying it, it’s on the record,” Johnson said. “I don’t see why we can’t proceed with this.”